Ase Set Palette

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'replace' which implies destructive overwriting of the existing palette, but it doesn't state whether the replacement is reversible, whether it affects all frames/layers, whether the number of colors must match the existing palette size, or what happens to sprite pixels that reference removed colors. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Replace') and the resource ('sprite palette') before mentioning the input. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could have used the space to add behavioral caveats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no annotations, no output schema details in description), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the effect on existing sprite pixels, whether the palette size is constrained, or what the output/return value is. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it. For a destructive palette operation, an agent needs more context to call it correctly and safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'hex colors' which maps to the 'colors' array parameter, and 'sprite palette' maps to 'sprite_path'. However, it doesn't clarify the format of the hex strings (e.g., '#RRGGBB' vs 'RRGGBB'), whether the array order determines palette index order, or whether the palette size is flexible. The description adds some meaning but leaves important parameter details undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Replace the sprite palette with the given hex colors' clearly states the action (replace), the resource (sprite palette), and the input (hex colors). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ase_set_palette_color (which sets a single color) and ase_get_palette (which reads the palette). It loses a point because it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the verb+resource combination is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: when you want to replace the entire palette with a new set of hex colors. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ase_set_palette_color (for changing one color) or ase_apply_palette_preset (for applying a preset). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.